Read the introduction to the release of the 2 booklets
Booklet 1: Essays for Participants from Phil Groves [Continuing Indaba], Loveday Alexander [Liberal], Ian Paul [Open Evangelical], and a further one used by the Church of Scotland when deciding to permit clergy living in sexually immorality to be ordained [more about the resulting splits here and here].
Booklet 2: ‘The thinking behind the conversations, the process and their place in the life of the church’
Archbishop Gomez was a genius at organizing strong printed response. May the work of Martin Davie and others meet this head on.
Why am I not surprised that the Catholic viewpoint has been ignored all together? As, of course, the Evangelical viewpoint is also ignored.
So, approximately 30% of the Church of England appears to be represented in the booklets- the 30% that already agrees with SSM.
The speed with which the CoE is breaking with the vast majority of the Anglican Communion is astounding. They aren’t even bothering to pretend that the process is representative of all views.
A quick perusal of the materials confirmed two things. First, by presenting the two sides as equally valid and credible, the question is entirely assumed away. Second, the materials are appear easily adapted to use by the CoE for embracing polyamory, when that come along.
Ian Paul’s paper is very thorough and bats away many of the usual efforts to make texts go a different way. I thought it was solid.
Plopping down the CofS ‘constrained difference’ paper as chapter 4 struck me as a bit odd. The CofE is not presbyterian/congregational and it would be hard to know how this would work given the diocesan reality and the office of Bishop.
I also wonder what Calvin would make of the CofS using him in this way? The issue in debate was the presence of Christ in the sacrament and a concern for reformed unity.
“Tired†has put their finger on a vital point, which is already assumed in the Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia, I am given to understand. For in the first instance, their General Synod last year Resolved a Motion 30, which had the following wording, and so deliberately placed the two groups on an equal footing:
“… those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is contrary to scripture, doctrine, tikanga or civil law, …â€; and
“… those who believe the blessing of same-gender relationships is consonant with scripture, doctrine, tikanga and civil law …â€.
In addition both groups are said to enjoy “integrity within the Churchâ€, which certainly claims they have equal status.
Another factor is the nationally assumed nature of marriage’s “redefinition†in light of 2013 New Zealand legislation formally Amending the Definition of Marriage. And “tired†again puts their finger right on it since the Act is governed solely by the principles of non-discrimination and equality – which may quite readily address consenting adults in a wide variety of household arrangements, polygamous, polyandrous, and/or polyamorous.
Once one loses the sorts of created differences Ian Paul so clearly highlights in his chapter of the Reader, then there is nothing, quite literally nothing, to determine how humans may ‘construct’ their sexual behaviours other than sheer autonomous will.
As I noted on a parallel thread, TEC began its “Continuing the Dialogue†process in 1994 and so has a head-start on the CofE and even NZ. We see the end-point of this process now in the [url=https://extranet.generalconvention.org/staff/files/download/12485]Report[/url] of the Task Force on the Study of Marriage to the 2015 General Convention, with its proposed revisions of Canon I.18, which in effect authorize and normalize same-sex marriage within the Church (not just blessing civil marriages). What is equally interesting is that the 12-person Task Force recommends these changes [i]unanimously[/i]. There is no minority report and no attempt to give a theological defense of traditional marriage in the 147 pages supporting the recommendations.
The Episcopal tiger has now devoured the traditionalist lady from Niger. Beware any who are tempted to take a similar ride.
P.S. Having overturned traditional marriage, the Task Force agonizes over the question whether [i]all[/i] TEC clergy should be required to perform same-sex marriages (pp. 82-83). At the end of the day they retain a provision for clergy to decline to officiate. It took twenty years (1977-1997) for TEC to abolish the conscience clause on women’s ordination. The Task Force clearly sees the current clause as a temporary concession, and even if it passes this year, I doubt TEC will wait that long next time to remove it.
6, I can easily see an amendment to the conscience clause to the effect that while performing a marriage is within the discretion of the officiant, they may not refuse if the only reason is that it is a same sex union. In any event even if the conscience provision survives it will be gone in one or two conventions.
#7. That is precisely what is being envisioned. Right now. You can see the full discussion at The Lead.
Dr. Seitz, I read the discussion and it was quite interesting. I thought you and several others did a good job in clarifying what I thought was a continuing effort of resolutions proponents at obfuscation as to the import of this proposed Canon. I am surprised that even with their near total control of GC they still feel a need to conceal their ultimate objective.
I think it is quite clear that at some point and by some mechanism (either up front or through the back door) same sex marriage will be normalized and all clergy be required to perform such marriages. At some point it would become clear that if a given clergy person performed marriages, but never performed a same sex one, that would be evidence of same sex discrimination and lead to discipline.
I don’t think the end result is in doubt, it’s just a question of when and how.
Now I wonder what is going to happen when marriage is once more redefined to mean two or more people? The discussions in TEC should be quite interesting.
#9 One thing is clear. It is crucial to have all this in the record. The scattered conservative Bishops still left in TEC are monitoring this and will need to lead in the HOB.
We have a polity neuralgia as well. Dioceses have their own canons. Dioceses can reserve the right to refuse to receive GC resolutions if they are at perceived as at odds with the Constitution; diocesan canons may even oblige this. (Title IV was a good example; many dioceses said it was received only to the degree it was judged constitutional).
There is no ecclesiastical court to rule when this kind of disagreement surfaces (and that is just as well, because the court would likely do the will of 815).
As you note everything is now stacked to get a desired outcome. The constitution BCP will become a Mr. Potato Head.
One ought not be surprised that it eventually gets the same treatment as scripture.
So we will see a train wreck this summer.
Dr. Seitz,
Given that your reading of the proposed canon changes, and the rest of the report, is likely much more thorough and informed than mine, I wonder if you might comment on this question:
Whether or not some form of conscience clause remains, will not all bishops, dioceses, clergy and parishes be required, under the reading of the revised marriage canon, in the context of the other canons and the constitution, to RECOGNIZE same sex and other non-traditional marriages as legitimate? And what impact will the change have on those few dioceses that still refuse to allow partnered gay clergy?
What I am getting at here is that, even if a particular clergyperson is not required to PERFORM the ceremony, by church law, will not a “married” couple be a married couple in all dioceses of TEC, and will a bishop or parish be allowed to “discriminate” against a same sex partnered cleric or ordinand when selecting clergy for parishes?
I would add in something else. I doubt that it will just be church authorities coming down on Br. Michael’s point in comment #7 “I can easily see an amendment to the conscience clause to the effect that while performing a marriage is within the discretion of the officiant, they may not refuse if the only reason is that it is a same sex union.”
I fully expect that clergy will be challenged by gay activists in the courts in relatively short order. There will be three possible areas of challenge.
First, all clergy might be challenged on the same general grounds as the bakery cases. Churches could probably successfully claim here that the freedom of religion clause protects them…MAYBE. But with the trend towards affirming sexual rights as the preeminent constitutional rights that has been going on in North America, the courts have also began to hollow out religious freedom.
Second, all clergy could be challenged as above, but with the additional argument that since ministers act as agents of the state in conducting marriages, their religious freedom ends when they act as an agent of the state. I could see this challenge succeed in the not too distant future. This would essentially require orthodox ministers to effectively take the ACI’s marriage pledge.
Third, and this is most on point to this discussion, clergy in liberal denominations could be challenged on the grounds Br. Michael brings up. Suppose a TEC priest is sued by a gay couple for not marrying them. The TEC priest claims she has the right to refuse to marry any couple and that in any case she is protected by religious freedom. The gay couple responds by pointing out that the TEC priest isn’t just refusing to marry the odd individual couple but is refusing to marry a class of couples, and that this isn’t a case of religious freedom at all, but just bigotry since the denomination has no problem at all with gay marriage.
It is my suspicion that the TEC’s gay mafia will eventually target a “troublesome” conservative priest still within TEC, ensure that they have a friendly judge in their pocket and launch just such a law suit. Then the dioceses can simply adapt their canons to follow the law.
To make my point clear, if the liberal denomination (and especially a “hierarchical” denomination) makes it clear that there is no theological obstacle to same-sex marriage, can an individual priest within that denomination then make a credible religious freedom claim that is inconsistent with the denomination’s position without it being simply dismissed as bigotry? And how would the secular courts view this?
#11 what do you mean by ‘recognize’? to what end?
# 13 — the marriage pledge arose in part in anticipation of some of your scenarios.
Otherwise, what you worry about I think is realistic.
# 11 I can say this much. One of the reasons we worked so hard on the extra-provincial concept, as such and specifically for the EDofSC, was that we could see a conflict arising between diocesan canons and the discretion of individual Bishops vis-Ã -vis something like a trial rite being used to hamstring them. The same kind of conflict could emerge that, in effect, triggered SC’s mechanisms for disassociation. Where the individual diocese a) has effective canonical and legal due diligence to push back, and b) a favorable judicial context (Ill and TX for now), then we assumed a strong extra-provincial status would be one option. Our concern has always been the widest degree of conciliarity, in the light of breakdown at the local level.
Dr. Seiz,
Thank you, as I think your #16 did indeed answer my question adequately, if obliquely- as I think you are foreseeing the same potential outcome or conflict.
But to be clear what I mean when I use the term “recognize”, let me use an example.
Let us say that diocese A retains its canon under which marriage is defined as between one man and one woman and a second canon stating that clergy are expected to be celibate or married. A clergyman from Diocese A marries a same sex partner in Diocese B, which allows SSM. Does Diocese A have to recognize the legitimacy of the marriage of the clergyman, since it is a canonical TEC marriage? Which, therefore, means he is no longer subject to discipline under the diocesan canon, because he is married per TEC canon?
My understanding is that all TEC baptisms, confirmations and marriages, regardless of where performed or by whom, must be recognized by all TEC jurisdictions. I know a lot of people who disagreed with the consecration of VGR, but certainly I don’t know any current Episcopalians willing to say out loud that he is NOT a bishop (other than maybe one or two on SF).
Apologies, that was intended to read “Dr. Seitz”
Also, thank you for your defense of the Faith mounted on Episcopal Cafe- it was instructive to read. At the very least, I hope the leaders of TEC you were jousting with will heed your words to follow their own rules.
#17 I would think this is tied up with civil realities. If in Diocese A one can get a ss marriage in law, and Bishop in said diocese allows a religious blessing, then such a person moving to another diocese would be legally married. But you may have something else in view.
What strikes me as more relevant is something like the Doyle Plan. Parish is opposed to ss blessing. Couple in the parish is outraged at the ‘discrimination.’ They leave and get ‘married/blessed’ in another (designated according to Doyle Plan) parish and return and make their new marriage a point of witness against the parish.
I think the job of the Christian is to be sure everything is in the record, in a situation of conflict. Then leaders and others can have a clear view of the choices God puts before them.
Eternity is a long time…
This is all going down the same path as TEC, where those who tried to hold back the flooding liberal tide were just brushed aside.
The same is likely to happen in CofE. The orthodox there need to think very seriously about what they will do when (and it is virtually certain that it is a matter of when, not if) their objections and arguments are brushed aside, just as they were in TEC. How will they protect their congregations? How will they ensure that the true Anglican witness continues in England?
“As I noted on a parallel thread, TEC began its “Continuing the Dialogue†process in 1994 …”
Good point.
Strong public stands were being taken against the liberals in TEC by at least 1996, and that has continued to this day. The process has been a long one.
“This is all going down the same path as TEC, where those who tried to hold back the flooding liberal tide were just brushed aside.”
Perhaps I don’t understand your wording.
What is ‘all this’? Obviously those in TX, Illinois and SC were able to withstand assault because of arguments won in court against TEC.
The verdict in San J is far from going TEC’s way. If our friend Allen Haley has anything to say about it…
TEC is not brushing aside anyone in these jurisdictions.
“Perhaps I don’t understand your wording.”
I think so. The dioceses of Fort Worth (TX), Quincy (Ill), Pittsburgh (PA) and San Joaquin (CA) all left TEC in 2008. They formally separated from it and joined ACNA as soon as it came into existence. I would not be comparing them with the situation in Church of England at present!
[Dio SC left TEC in 2012 (or more correctly, was pushed) but the same principle applies.]
I hope it never comes to formal separation in CofE but if it does, it is some way off yet. Whether or not it does come to that is essentially a matter for the CofE hierarchy, in my view, i.e. whether they are determined to push the orthodox beyond what their consciences will allow. This is essentially what happened in TEC and I hope and pray that the CofE hierarchy will learn the lesson before it is too late.
Its never possible to draw exact parallels between historical situations, but there are marked similarities between the way CofE seems to be headed now, and the way TEC went in the early years of the 21st century.
If I had to pick a year, I would say that CofE now most closely resembles TEC in about 2001- 2002, after foreign primates consecrated bishops for the first formal border-crossing, but before the consecration of VG Robinson took matters to another level. Thankfully also, as yet we have seen no parallels with the purge conducted by Ms KJ Schori in 2006-2007 (I recall Dio Quincy had a list of over 100 TEC clergy that were deposed during this period). So in England I think they are still a long way short of the situation that TEC was in in 2008 – but that might be an over-optimistic assessment.
A clarification to my last: the 100 deposed clergy on the list were not in Dio Quincy, but in the whole of TEC. Rather, the list was put together by someone in that Diocese.
I recall a number of commentators on Stand Firm in 2008 thought the list missed a lot of clergy who were deposed or inhibited in some way.
Yes, they formally separated. The status of their actual churches and property vis-Ã -vis TEC was however contested (and remains so in the case of San Joaquin; Pittsburgh lost).
The effort of TEC to keep the churches and property was defeated in three states, even as one might anticipate some possible SCOTUS review at some point. So they weren’t ‘brushed aside’. I think the future of ‘progressive TEC’ is in question, numerically, over time.
In the CofE this will play out differently one assumes because of the character of establishment.
Dr Seitz, in the sense that I meant (and I think I am entitled to decide what my own post means!) they were indeed brushed aside along with the rest of the orthodox well before 2008. They were forced to leave.
The fact that in several cases American dioceses that have left have succeeded in keeping their property does not change the fact that prior to 2008 they didn’t want to leave, but to stay and prevent the encroaching liberalisation of TEC. As did many other orthodox, I might add. And that is where they were brushed aside.
I have already explained this but I am happy to state it again: I was referring to the orthodox efforts to prevent the liberal take-over of TEC in the late 90s and early 2000s. And at times they had some success, but looking back and taking the long view, they were brushed aside.
I am pretty sure that most of the orthodox evangelicals in CofE at the moment do not wish to have to leave, whether or not they get to keep property (which in the CofE context is fairly irrelevant anyway – the legal position on what CofE owns and what it does not is much more clear than in the USA). Therefore, the situation from 2008 to the present doesn’t hold a lot of relevance for them. But the situation from say 1996 to 2007 does.
I think ‘progressive TEC’ will collapse. It is not a lot larger than 1M. On the landscape of American Christianity it is minute. It is not very distinctive either over against the UCC etc.
This makes a comparison to the CofE hard to make, except in general terms. And as I said, the legal circumstances are very different.
PS–only a handful of dioceses left and some are faring well as legal entities (Ft Worth, SC, Quincy). The fate of San Joaquin is not final. Pittsburgh lost.
MichaelA,
Perhaps Dr. Seitz or one of the SF admins has better info than I do, but this is my understanding on the Quincy clergy list.
I think the list of deposed clergy that Quincy issued was entirely composed of clergy canonically resident in the diocese of Quincy. TEC clergy are not necessarily “canonically resident” in the diocese in which they serve. A large number of Anglo Catholic clergy maintained residence in Quincy so that the bishop who had jurisdiction over their orders was one of the few remaining Anglo Catholic bishops (there are no longer any Anglo Catholic diocesans, they are banned by canon at this point, so the link for any clergy is tenuous at best). Many were retired. Others served in places ranging from California to the East Coast. But in any case, there were many more clergy officially resident in Quincy than were employed there. When TEC instituted its rump diocese, the bishop installed by KJS sent out a letter to all those clergy demanding that they recognize his authority. Those who responded “no” were immediately deposed (one was a very close friend) and any that did not respond by a given date were inhibited- and then either deposed or, as is the modern TEC custom, their “renunciation of orders was accepted by the bishop.” So, unless I miss my guess, all the clergy on that list of 100 were canonically resident in Quincy at the time.
The total number of clergy deposed, from 2003 through today, is something on the order of 600. Anglo Catholics make up a much percentage than their numbers in the TEC of 2003, since they were targeted initially in the Howard mass firings in Florida, and later on in KJS’s successful effort to eliminate the 3 FiF bishops from TEC. Of course, the “unintended consequence” appears to be that those FiF dioceses, having prepared since the 90s for the day when TEC would decide to eliminate the last of its anti-WO clergy, have fared better than KJS expected in her attempts to seize their churches and diocesan properties.
Hi tjmcmahon, I would just add that someone wrote on Stand Firm in 2008 that the 100 names on the list were deposed during 2006-2007. So I am not disagreeing with any of your points, but just saying that there was a significant number of depositions in those two years prior to the dioceses leaving.
Breaking news: It seems that the bishops in CofE have issued a directive that every person seeking ordination as deacon, priest or bishop must be asked whether they agree with the ordination of women, and if they do not, they will be refused ordination: http://anglicanmainstream.org/most-serious-threat-to-reformed-anglicans-since-archbishop-laud/
This alone will finish off the orthodox in CofE within a generation. And the extension of this to require assent to other things will only be a matter of time.
#31 The one thing I believe we at ACI have always believed is this: when the CofE comes apart, it will look slow at first but it will accelerate much more quickly. This is because of the efforts to control things inside small pockets of power. I’d be tempted to call this an English predilection…Americans have their own, as do Canadians.
That’s a fair point, Dr Seitz. And I agree that cultural differences as much as legal differences will come to the fore, so that some comparison is possible but it only goes so far.
The same disagreements are obviously there.
New World instincts are to move to a state further west until one runs out of them.
The established church dimension creates within it groupings with semi-autonomous character. Will these ‘leave’ or find a way to remain true to their convictions? I don’t know.
The picture of Sentamu, Lane, and North may paper over enormous differences and be altogether phony. But it is impossible in TECdom.
On a slightly different note:
“Battles within the Church of England are fought with smiles above the table, whilst the most vicious kicking is being delivered below it.”
– Revd John Richardson
The whole matter leads me to wonder if the Church of England is more and more a creature of Parliament and the plaything of public opinion rather than an authentic witness to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.